Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ganeshbhai Jhinabhai Gavit on 19 July, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1622 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GANESHBHAI JHINABHAI GAVIT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN MEHTA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. JAYDEEP M SHUKLA(6974) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 19/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI)
1. The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari on 20.9.2003 in Sessions Case no.112 of 2001. The learned Trial Court Judge observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and thus, acquitted both the Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined accused under Sections 302, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP, referring to the facts of the case, submitted that though the complainant has turned hostile, the learned Trial Court Judge was required to appreciate the evidence, which has come on record with the evidence of one Ratan Jivan who was the labourer at the place of incident and the evidence had to be assessed by reading the deposition of the complainant as well as this witness together, which could have substantiated the allegation which has been lodged against the complainant. The learned APP has submitted that the learned Judge has failed to take into consideration the evidence in the form of postmortem note, which shows the injuries and the cause of death is asphyxia, which could be observed to consider that the accused had strangulated the deceased.
3. Heard Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP. We have perused the depositions of the witnesses. During the course of trial, about five witnesses were examined and the prosecution has relied upon the documentary evidence. The complainant - Atin Iklu was examined as PW2 and Ratan Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined Jivan who is referred as eye-witness was examined as PW3. The postmortem note shows that the Doctor has opined that the cause of death is due to asphyxia. The complainant stated that on the day of the incident, his father had taken goats for grazing in their field and the field which was of Devchand sold to the accused, all the three accused had come there and the driver Rajesh along with them who was on the tractor at that time, there was verbal altercation between the accused and the complainant's father. He stated that his father had fallen down with his head down to earth. He had also gone to rescue his father, at that time, he said that three of the accused exhorted to kill him so he ran away from the place. He stated that he had seen his father fallen down on the earth with his head towards the earth. The complainant was referred to Exh.20, his complaint, which he did not support and therefore, he was declared hostile. The learned APP by referring to the complaint had brought it on record by affirmation that the complainant had seen the incident and the father had fallen in their field with the face down towards the earth and the deceased and the accused were giving kick and fist blows. He also stated that Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined in the complaint, he has given the facts that there was coconut coir in the hands of Ganesh and Ganesh had climbed upon his father and was beating his father. However, in the cross-examination, this fact has not been supported by the complainant. He affirmed that he has not seen Ratan Jivan taking the cattles towards his field. He had no occasion to talk with Ratan Jivan and had never informed him about the incident. He also affirmed in the cross-examination that he had not seen all the three accused beating his father. He even referred to the title of the property, which was sold by Devchand and since Devchand was the nephew, his father had an impression that he has the right on the property. His father was not happy with the fact that the accused had purchased the property from Devchand. He also stated that on that day, his father had refused for working on the field and therefore, the accused person has left the place. He also affirmed that there has been tenancy case in Mamlatdar Court and affirmed that there was enmity because of the land, which was sold to them by Devchand. The complainant has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. He has also not given any details in the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined cross-examination to believe the prosecution case. Ratan Jivan who is alleged to have remained present at the time of the incident and who as per the prosecution had seen the incident, has not supported the prosecution case. He very clearly denied of seeing the incident and he stated that the deceased Iklu had on that day since there was dispute between them, asked accused to move away from the field, but since they did not remove the tractor, the verbal quarrel ensued and since his cattles had moved, he went away from this place and thereafter, when he returned back, he had seen Iklu dead on the field. He had not seen the incident with his own eyes. He clarified of not seeing the accused beating the deceased.
4. The learned Trial Court Judge has examined the testimony of all the witnesses, and has analyzed the evidence on record. The case of strangulation as projected could not be proved. The complainant himself has failed to corroborate his own complaint. The witness - Ratan Jivan has not supported the prosecution case. He has denied of seeing any abuse or beatings to the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia, where it could not be proved of any Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined strangulation from the side of the accused.
5. In view of the observations made hereinabove, we find that the analysis of the evidence is consistent with the testimony on the record. The complainant as well as the witness who is alleged to be the eye-witness have not supported the prosecution case. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment and thus, accordingly, we upheld the judgment of the acquittal by observing the judgment in the case of Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"61. In a case of acquittal, if the trial court's view is a possible or plausible view, then the Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in interfering with it. It is the settled legal position that there is presumption of innocence and that presumption is further fortified with the acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The Appellate Court or the High Court would not be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal unless it comes to a clear conclusion that the judgment of the trial court is utterly perverse and, on the basis of the evidence on record, no other view is plausible or possible than the one taken by the Appellate Court or the High Court."
6. In view of the above and the principles of law that have been laid down, the appeal stands dismissed. Registry is Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1622/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/07/2025 undefined directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Trial Court, if received.
(GITA GOPI,J) (MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) Maulik Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:56:05 IST 2025